2012's Holiday Season's Obvious Oscarbait, Les Miserables Lives Up!

The Good: Mostly great acting, Decent music, Good cinematography, Great characters
The Bad: Eddie Redmayne is underwhelming, Pacing
The Basics: The latest cinematic version of Les Miserables may be an obvious grab for awards, but it is worth the accolades given the quality of this interpretation.


A year ago, there was much geeking out in my home. I was excited because of the earliest rumors and information about Prometheus (reviewed here!). My wife, on the other hand, was drooling over the information that was slowly leaking out about Les Miserables, one of her two favorite musicals. I figured I had the best of the year’s worth of anticipation; whether or not the epic I was enthusiastic about met my expectations, I would get a new Anne Hathway film on Christmas day. It was win-win for me (and I was one of the few who still loved Prometheus) and having to not wait until Christmas for new Anne Hathaway made it even better (if you want new Anne Hathaway now, check out the Funny Or Die video with her and Samuel L. Jackson online now!).

Les Miserables is a film based upon the play based upon the novel and it is worth noting that while I have seen the play or read the book, I have seen film and filmed versions of the play. I have also reviewed one of the celebrated soundtracks for the play (that review is here!) and my wife’s enthusiasm for it has certainly made me excited for it. However, I intend to limit this review to the Tom Hooper-directed Les Miserables that seems this season’s most obvious Oscarbait.

Unlike Chicago (reviewed here!) from a few years ago, Les Miserables is a musical that is presented as a film with its own reality. This is not a “play on film” like Chicago was. The musical interludes are a way to present emotions, exposition, and create mood, as opposed to intentionally replicating a theatrical (play) event. And, while Les Miserables is obvious Oscarbait, it manages not to fall into the same problem as Mystic River (reviewed here!) where there is predictable greatness. While I am tempted to say that anything that features Anne Hathaway is stacking the casting deck, the truth is she has a more extensive cinematic resume of romantic comedies, as opposed to deep dramas (though the dramas she has been in have been ones that show her easily able to handle an incredible range and a wide variety of situations). Moreover, Hugh Jackman has had some real cinematic lemons, as have Sacha Baron Cohen . . . and Russell Crowe is frequently typecast and used for a very limited range of character. Fortunately, on Les Miserables, the cast is used extraordinarily well and, with the exception of Redmayne, who is overshadowed in virtually every scene by his red-coated costar Aaron Tveit, in ways that they are not frequently captured on film.

Les Miserables is a story of one man’s struggles and strife amid the backdrop of the French Revolution. Having stolen a loaf of bread to feed his family, Jean Valjean is imprisoned for the crime and his attempt to flee prosecution. When Valjean, on parole after nineteen years of hard time, steals from the local bishop, the Bishop vouches for him to the authorities and Valjean is given a second chance to live right. Valjean becomes a respected citizen, mayor, and factory owner after years of being on the outside. Working at one of his factories is Fantine, a young woman who has turned to prostitution on the side in order to feed her baby daughter. Rescued from Inspector Javert following a conflict at Valjean’s factory, Fantine dies of tuberculosis.

Despite Valjean exposing himself to Javert to prevent an innocent man from being accused of being Valjean and having Javert’s wrath taken out on him, Valjean promises to return to Javert’s custody after he makes arrangements for Fantine’s daughter, Cosette. Valjean betrays Javert and takes Cosette on the run from the law. Years later, having raised Cosette as his own, revolution comes to France. Cosette finds herself embroiled in a love triangle with a revolutionary boy and Valjean has the chance to forgive Javert for a lifetime of pursuit when the revolutionaries are going to put Javert to death for being a spy.

Les Miserables is an epic and it is extraordinary. As a film, Les Miserables is presented by director Tom Hooper in a way that uses the medium exceptionally well. The locations are big and the sense of time passing is executed well on the actors, sets, and costumes. Keeping largely with the theatrical version, the cinematic Les Miserables includes comic relief in the form of the Thenardiers. While Madame Thenardier is well within the range or Helena Bonham Carter, her husband is portrayed by Sacha Baron Cohen. Cohen does an impressive job of being more restrained than in most of his other roles and while he makes the role work, this rendition of Les Miserables doies not actually need that entire subplot and set of characters. In fact, while plays like Les Miserables judiciously mix humor and drama to keep from being too heavy and to allow for sets to be changed, in this version of Les Miserables, the presence of the Thenardiers is more distracting (though they do add another viewpoint on the Revolution) than necessary.

Musically, Les Miserables is enjoyable, though my wife informs me the soundtrack is altered some to fit the ranges of the performers (most notably Hathaway). As one not tied to the original play or soundtrack, I have to say it all sounded wonderful. Jackman makes for an amazing Jean Valjean in his vocalizations and Samantha Barks is wrenching as Eponine. Les Miserables sounds wonderful with the vocal performances that do add additional depth to the characters.

Russell Crowe did not wow me as Javert, but he fit the bill for in-character stiff in a way that worked surprisingly well. Javert is supposed to be obsessed and rigid in his determination to find Valjean and enforce law and order over any understanding of human emotions. Crowe fits the bill for that. Crowe presents Javert as somewhat robotic and he stands out next to how Anne Hathaway takes a bit role and fills it with hearthbreaking pathos or Jackman as Valjean, who is so good that he makes viewers forget how he ever growled his way through Wolverine. Even Amanda Seyfried is able to display uncommon range and emotion as Cosette that makes the character more than a simple love interest for Marius. Seyfried, Barks, Cohen, Hathaway and Jackman are so explosively dynamic that they shine so bright to make Crowe seem stiffer and blander by comparison.

Les Miserables is a cinematic musical that transcends its source material to use the film medium extraordinarily well. Hooper creates a distinct time, place and mood that feels appropriately epic. While “epic” is, by nature, long, great direction can keep such a film moving along. Unfortunately, Hooper misses some key marks – especially in keeping truer to the play by giving the Thenardiers their due – and the film feels long.

That said, Jean Valjean is presented as an intriguing and sufficiently deep character to invite the investment of time and energy in his journey. Les Miserables might be a long film telling a great story with interesting characters, released at the time of year as appropriate to get most of the people involved nominated for big awards, but it is worth it and enjoyable, even when it is heartbreaking for the way it portrays the depth of human suffering.

For works featuring Anne Hathaway, please check out my reviews of:
Anne Hathaway For Wonder Woman!
The Dark Knight Rises
One Day
Rio
Love And Other Drugs
Family Guy Presents: It's A Trap!
Alice In Wonderland
Valentine's Day
Twelfth Night Soundtrack
Bride Wars
Rachel Getting Married
Passengers
Get Smart
Becoming Jane
The Devil Wears Prada
Havoc
Hoodwinked!
Brokeback Mountain
The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement
Ella Enchanted
Nicholas Nickleby
The Other Side Of Heaven
The Princess Diaries

8.5/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of my movie reviews!

© 2012 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Is The King's Speech Truly The Best Film Of 2010? No, But It's Worth Seeing!

The Good: Charming, Great acting, Moments of character, Plot development
The Bad: Not homogeneously great acting, Pacing issues
The Basics: While a certainly worthwhile film to see at least once, The King's Speech is not a perfect film, nor necessarily a worthy Best Picture winner (no matter how many people were betting on it!)


It is a very rare thing that I find myself reviewing a film in theaters that has already won the Best Picture Oscar.  As those who follow my many reviews know, I am proud of having seen every film that won the Best Picture and, like last year when The Hurt Locker (reviewed here!) won, I found myself forced to take in a new movie rather suddenly in order to keep current with the Best Picture winners.  I am not eager to get mired into the whole Best Picture thing while reviewing The King's Speech, except to say that I went into the film biased.  I suspected that it would not be as extraordinary a use of the film medium as Inception (reviewed here!) was and thus I had a little resentment that the film I rooted for all year fell to this at the Oscars.  That said . . .

The King's Speech was almost exactly what I figured it to be going in, save that the most impressive visual moments of the film were all included in the Oscars various clip shows.  This is not a film brimming with movement, spectacle or even much in the way of a weighty sense of consequence for most of the film.  That said, it is worth noting that it is not The Remains Of The Day, either.  In other words, this is not  terribly droll, plodding along British film where the viewer falls asleep eight times and awakens each time to feel like they have missed nothing because the film has not moved.  No, The King's Speech actually tackles the British "stiff upper lip" stereotype and explores the power and poignancy of early psychology in a rapidly changing world.  And, arguably, one of the most refreshing aspects of the film is that the protagonist is not instantly cured and the struggle is worth watching for the most part.

Opening in 1925 with the closing speech at the Empire Exhibition, the Duke Of York, Prince Albert is introduced as a nervous man with a stutter and a long-suffering wife who clearly loves and supports him.  While Albert - Bertie to his wife and family - struggles with his words, Elizabeth tries to find him a tutor or speech therapist who will actually help him.  In 1934 in London, she finds Lionel Logue, who has unconventional methods, but is eager to treat the whole problem with Bertie, not just the physical manifestations of it.  While Lionel and Bertie explore an unconventional relationship where Lionel treats Bertie as an equal instead of a royal, Bertie struggles with living in his father's shadow, especially under the pressure of the 1934 Christmas broadcast.

As the years pass, Albert's sense of anxiety over the speech impediment grows as his older brother, David, continues to carry on with married women and appears unable and unwilling to maintain the traditions of the royal family.  With the death of King George V and the abdication of David, Bertie finds himself in the unlikely role of Britain's monarch.  With the rise of Hitler, the new King George VI must master speeches to rally the English to the defense of Europe.

First off, it is very much worth noting that The King's Speech has pacing issues and the only thing that got it lumped into the "R" rating was a few moments of language wherein Bertie explodes or discovers that when he swears, he does not stammer.  It is remarkably safe for teenagers, despite the language and all but the most prudish parents should feel unthreatened by sharing this with their families.  Of course, it is hard to see the appeal of The King's Speech for most youngsters, so it would be unsurprising if young people did not want to see the film.

The pacing is, in fact, the most serious issue with The King's Speech and the oppressive sense of mood almost undermines the film.  The King's Speech is very realistic in the time it takes to explore Bertie's condition and it is difficult to watch in may points as a result.  This is not a terribly entertaining film, but it does capture the realism of the times and places remarkably well.  This means the film is very gray and drab, the soundtrack is slow and plodding more than anything intended to arouse any excitement or enthusiasm.  But the film does have a sense of going somewhere and the saving grace of the film is that it  does.

So much has been said about Collin Firth's portrayal of Albert and there is little more than can be said.  He is incredible with portraying Albert with his speech impediment and as a result, he is frequently hearwrenching to watch.  He stammers expertly and in the moments where he struggles and clicks, it is impossible not to empathize with him because his portrayal includes acting through the eyes where he expresses a profound sense of shame and strength (alternately) as he struggles.

The supporting cast is mostly wonderful, with Michael Gambon using his brief time to memorably portray King George V, making it obvious how Bertie was so screwed up.  Similarly, Guy Pearce (Edward VIII/David), Timothy Spall (Churchill) and Derek Jacobi all make memorable use of their time on screen.  Helena Bonham Carter, however, slips too frequently to be considered a great actress in The King's Speech.  There are moments, like one where she congratulates Bertie, where her eyes play with the same whimsy that made her portrayal of the Red Queen in Alice In Wonderland so delightfully creepy.  In other words, there were unfortunate moments where I was aware I was watching Helena Bonham Carter and not Elizabeth.

The same cannot be said of Geoffrey Rush, who provides arguably the most underrated performance in The King's Speech.  There is not a hint of any other character Rush has played in his defiant portrayal of Lionel Logue and he has the gravitas to stand up to Collin Firth and be a credible counterpart to his character.

In all, The King's Speech falls closer to what I call "predictable greatness" than actually being an impressive film.  The cast is a stacked deck and the subject is perfect Oscar fodder, but one suspects when the hype is gone, this film will end up on the same shelf as The English Patient where the forgettable greats go after their moment fades.

As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this is part of my Best Picture Project, which is available for enjoyment here!  Check it out!

For other films in theaters, check out my reviews of:
Hall Pass
I Am Number Four
Unknown
Black Swan

7/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |